Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds a valuable behavioral guarantee—'Planning never spends automatically'—which clarifies the side-effect boundary and is not captured in the schema or annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, both substantive: the first identifies the action and object, the second adds a critical safety constraint. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is sufficient for calling the tool with just the required 'goal' parameter and understanding it does not spend money. However, it does not describe return values, the meaning of optional parameters, or how budget and currency affect planning behavior, so the agent lacks the full context needed for richer calls.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does not clarify what 'mode', 'currency', or 'budget_cents' mean, and only 'goal' is inferable from the description. This leaves the optional parameters ambiguous and risks misuse.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Decompose a goal and build a capability plan.' This clearly distinguishes it from execution-oriented tools like do_goal and start_paid_goal, though it does not explicitly name a competing sibling tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Planning never spends automatically' provides useful context that this is a safe planning operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as plan_agent_team, plan_profitable_execution, or create_buyer_goal, nor does it mention any preconditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.